> >> It seems to me that this definition of a species is very slippery.> >> How do you determine if a population is reproductively isolated?

> >> If two groups of organisms are isolated but not really noticeably> >> different, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring you call them> >> two species?? Using this definition Inuit would be a different> >> species from Bushmen, correct?

> >No. If two groups can successfully interbreed, dispite their> >physilogical differences then they are, by defintion, part of the same> >species.

This, of course, is an irrelevant discussion from the point of view
of a paleontologist or a paleoanthropologist. The rules for
naming species are based only on structural features.
I have noted in the past that, using this criterium, most
"species" assignments made by both paleontologists and paleo
anthopologists have a very high probability of being innaccurate
from the point of view of a non-paleo zoologist. It is probable
that the majority of new "species" defined by paleo-scientists are
in reality new genera. Maybe "species" assignments are
just a "slippery slope" in non-paleo zoology, but in paleo, these
assignments are probably a more like a statistical artifact!
<pb>